Is social mobility improving?

In 2005, we published one of the most widely quoted and influential studies in the Sutton Trust’s history. In a comparison of eight European and North American countries, researchers from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics found that Britain and the United States had the lowest levels of social mobility. Whilst social mobility levels in the US had remained stable, they had declined in the UK: poorer children born in the 1970s were less likely to do well than those born in the 1950s.

The LSE study pointed to two main issues that were hindering mobility in the UK. First, they found there was a strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment. Although educational opportunities, particularly places available at university, had expanded rapidly, they had disproportionately benefited children from better off homes. Second, the gap in earnings between the rich and poor had widened significantly as inequality rose during the 1980’s.

Since the study was published, social mobility has been pushed high onto the national agenda and there has been a concerted effort to improve prospects for children from poorer homes. Has this paid off? Do less advantaged young people stand a better chance of doing well in 2015 than they did in the seventies and the eighties?

There is no doubt that education opportunities have improved: schools now spend billions of pounds each year on improving results for the poorest pupils through the pupil premium, we have universal early-years education and more and more disadvantaged pupils are entering higher education thanks to improved access and outreach programmes.

But there still remains a pervasive link between family income and educational attainment. At age five, there is already a 19 month gap in school readiness between the richest and poorest children which only widens throughout primary and secondary school. By the time they are 18, a young person from the richest fifth of neighbourhoods is over eight times more likely to go to a Russell Group university than a child from the poorest fifth.

These disparities continue in working life. The UK’s leading professions remain disproportionately dominated by those who went to private schools. Our recent analysis of the educational backgrounds of leading lawyers found that the number of top judges educated at private schools is around three in four, a figure that has barely changed since the 1980s.

Better-off parents have found more and more ways to retain an advantage for their children. They can pay for private tuition to help with exams, buy expensive houses close to the best schools and use their networks of professional friends to secure internships. For families who can’t afford to do the same, their child is left at a disadvantage.

We need to think radically about how to break this cycle of low social mobility. We need to find ways to attract and develop the best teachers to help those pupils most in need of support and look at ways to ensure that admissions to the best schools aren’t limited to those who can afford to live close by. We must build better access to our top universities and ensure internships are paid and advertised. If we don’t, the prospects for improved social mobility will remain bleak for future generations, limiting this country’s economic growth and prosperity.

Sir Peter Lampl will join Professor Stephen Machin, one of the authors of the 2005 study, at a seminar at LSE this evening. They will critically review what has been done by Government and others to address the problem of low social mobility over the past decade and assess the social mobility prospects for future generations. They will be joined by Jo Blanden, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Surrey and co-author of the 2005 study, and Dr Lee Elliot Major, Chief Executive of the Sutton Trust.